BACHU LAKHMAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted under sec. 3(1) and sec. 4(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The judgment of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class Junagadh was confirmed by the Sessions Judge Junagadh in appeal. Hence this revision application.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the Assistant Superintendent of Police sent a bogus punter Lalji by name to the house of the applicant with a five rupee currency note that Lalji gave this currency note to the applicant who thereupon asked Lalji to select a girl for the purpose of prostitution. Lalji selected the wife of the applicant Jaya alias Indumati by name and both were allowed to go into a room. The Police and Panchas then made a raid and found the punter in the company of Jaya in a compromising attitude on a cot. The Five rupee currency note was found in the pocket of the applicant. The applicant was prosecuted. He denied that he was guilty but admitted that he had received Rs. 5/from Lalji but according to him he was given that amount in connection with the sale of a horse. The Trying Magistrate rejected the defence accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the applicant as stated above and the conviction was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal.

(3.) In revision the following points were raised by the learned counsel for the applicant:-- (1) The Assistant Superintendent of Police was not specially empowered by the Government; (2) under the Act a Police Officer must be specially empowered. He relies on Emperor vs. Udho s/o. Chandumal and others A.I.R. 1943 Sind 107 It is next contended that the Asst. Superintendent of Police did not record the grounds for his belief as required under sec. 15 of the Act and therefore the raid is vitiated; and the third point argued is that the Panchas selected did not belong to the locality namely Bukar Falia where the house was situated but they belonged to others localities in the same town. It is next contended that there is no proof that the house was used as a brothel. Another contention urged is that there is no corroboration of the evidence of Lalji the bogus punter. It is lastly contended that at any rate the offence would fall under sec. 3(2) and not under sec. 3(1) of the Act.